Dealing with Misspecfication of Formative Variables

Frequently asked questions about PLS path modeling.
Post Reply
Pikerum777
PLS Junior User
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:48 am
Real name and title: Phd Pablo

Dealing with Misspecfication of Formative Variables

Post by Pikerum777 » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:06 am

Hello Collegaues!

I have some doubts concerning this issue as a reviewer has told me that my two formative constructs should emit paths to other unrelated constructs to avoid misspecification in my model. Of course he says it from an AMOS point of view but I do not know how to reply him in PLS, how to demonstrate him that my formative measures have been well defined. i see that a tetrad analysis could offer validity to my formative measures?

Any article or document that can help me to answer him?

I have tested a model with one formative measure related to a reflective (phantom) one, and it works, but i do not know if I must do it for the entire model, I mean, if I have to include in my entire model the phantom variable and also another one unrelated variable for my other formative construct in order to answer him and prove that misspecification is not a problem.

Could I only test individually a model with each formative variable related to a phantom variable and another model with the other formative measure related to an unrelated variable?

Thanks a lot

User avatar
cringle
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:13 am
Real name and title: Prof. Dr. Christian M. Ringle
Location: Hamburg (Germany)
Contact:

Re: Dealing with Misspecfication of Formative Variables

Post by cringle » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:05 am

Thanks. Often the factor model view of CB-SEM is transferred to the composite-based PLS-SEM method. A good start to respond to the reviewer may be that you are looking into composites as proxies of the conceptual variables of interest, which technically do not involve the concerns raised by the reviewer:
In addition, here you find some argument when to use PLS-SEM:

Richter, N. F., Cepeda Carrión, G., Roldán, J. L., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). European Management Research Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): Editorial. European Management Journal, 34(6), 589-597. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7316300925

And some argument that you don't want to use:

Rigdon, E. E. (2016). Choosing PLS Path Modeling as Analytical Method in European Management Research: A Realist Perspective. European Management Journal, 34(6), 598-605. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7316300585

These articles may be helpful to deal with the reviewer.

User avatar
cringle
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:13 am
Real name and title: Prof. Dr. Christian M. Ringle
Location: Hamburg (Germany)
Contact:

Re: Dealing with Misspecfication of Formative Variables

Post by cringle » Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:35 pm

I almost forgot to mention this recent open-access article on the CB-SEM and PLS-SEM debate:

Rigdon, E. E., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2017). On Comparing Results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM. Five Perspectives and Five Recommendations. Marketing ZFP, 39(3), 4-16. https://rsw.beck.de/docs/librariesprovi ... f?sfvrsn=0

:)

User avatar
cringle
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:13 am
Real name and title: Prof. Dr. Christian M. Ringle
Location: Hamburg (Germany)
Contact:

Re: Dealing with Misspecfication of Formative Variables

Post by cringle » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:57 pm

Here you also find some argument when to use PLS-SEM:

Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of Market Research. Heidelberg: Springer. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... n_Modeling

Post Reply